Marathon Pundit: Brookings Institution's view of redistricting

This summer the left-leaning Brookings Institution took a look at redistricting at found the 70 percent of registered voters had no opinion on the process. That's bound to change as maps are carved up in states such as Illinois where, as I wrote yesterday, protection of incumbents and the punishing of enemies are the key factors when drawing new legislative and congressional districts.

Brookings looked at redistricting this summer and my oh my, they found that Illinois "public servants" were making mischief as they played a self-serving version of the board game Risk.

Politicians often use redistricting as an opportunity to cut unfavorable constituents and potential challengers out of their districts. Barack Obama, for example, learned the rough and tumble of redistricting politics when Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) carved Obama's Chicago home out of Rush's congressional district after losing a 2000 primary challenge to Obama, then a state senator.

Incumbents can also use redistricting to move favorable constituents into their districts. Obama himself used the state legislative redistricting to extend his predominantly African American district north into a wealthy area of Illinois known as the Gold Coast. This new constituency allowed Obama to hone an effective biracial campaigning style that served him well when he ran for the U.S. Senate and the presidency.

Critically, these decisions are made with little or no public input or accountability. While Arizona and California are among the few states that give the public a chance to see and participate in how the boundaries are set, by using open redistricting commissions, most states gerrymander legislative lines behind closed doors. Figures from both major parties tilt the electoral playing field so much that one party is essentially assured of winning a given district, controlling the state legislature or winning the most seats in the state's congressional delegation. In other words, the democratic process is subverted. In this system, politicians select voters rather than voters electing politicians.

And the system stinks.

But there is some good news:

In the coming year, however, technological advancements will enable anyone with a Web browser and an interest in how he or she is represented to draw district maps of his or her community and state that meet the same requirements as official submissions. Under the direction of scholars at the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute, and with consultation from an array of experts in redistricting issues, we have developed a set of principles for transparency and public participation. These principles have been endorsed by an array of stakeholders, including Common Cause and the League of Women Voters of the United States.

Surely Illinois Governor Pat Quinn and state House Speaker Michael Madigan have the software and tools for creating new districts and the Brookings Institutition, while admitting such materials are difficult for the public to comprehend, it encourages that the process be transparent, suggesting:

Software systems used to generate or analyze redistricting plans can be complex, impossible to reproduce, or impossible to correctly understand without documentation. Transparency thus requires that:

Software used to automatically create or improve redistricting plans must be either open-source or provide documentation sufficient for the public to replicate the results using independent software.

Software used to generate reports that analyze redistricting plans must be accompanied by documentation of data, methods, and procedures sufficient for the reports to be verified by the public.

Hello Governor Pat Quinn and Speaker Mike Madigan...are you listening?

Related post:

Tea Party time for Illinois redistricting

Technorati tags: